Pollster.com

Good week for Dems. Let us see if it lasts.

Your definition of good news is quite strange.....unless your perhaps a closet conservative?

I thought a "super majority" of Americans are supposed to oppose HCR? What this and many recent polls show is that HCR is nowhere near as toxic as conservatives and foxnews and make it sound like it is.

You libs bring new meanign to the term SUCKER! One poll you Dems seem to be inlove with is that internet poll by the economist last week......showing support for HCR. LOL...ya those internet polls everyone loves. Now PPP who seems to miss every election lately is doing what partisan pollsters do....they are tryignt o sway votes by putting out numbers they know are bogus. And they do the oldest polling trick i nthe book, they give the best response for the question they want the most and mask it with negatives for there team in other questions.

That trick has been done for years in polling.

A majoirty is opposed to HCR...all the wishful thinking and hoping i nthe wrold for you libs won't hcnage that. You lack the votes in the House to pass it. Obama continues to bleed i napproval.

But by all means, don't let a stoggy old conservative like em ruin your optimism!

Actually PPP's polls have tended to lean more Republican than even Rasmussen in recent elections. You just don't like the fact that the Republican talking points on HCR are not in dovetail with reality.

Riiiight. That is why there is huge bi partisan opposition to the bill....and only flakey Dems support it. That is why every poll shows either a majoirty or a plurality opposed to it with the exception of every liberals favorite internet pollster the economist.

You libs whine and cry about having bi partisnaship, well we have it, in opposing this HCR joke.

William,

I would love to hear your thought as too which Rep talking point is not based in reality. It seems to me that the Dems are the one's talking straight out of their butts on this one.

For instance:
Talking point: The plan gives Americans, rather than government or health insurers, more control over their health insurance.

Reality: While you may want to go without insurance—especially once the government is done remaking it—the government will make you fork over cash to the insurance companies. If you want to buy a cheap catastrophic policy, the government will tell the insurance companies not to offer you one.

Talking point: The bill lets you keep your doctor and your insurance plan.

Reality: Unless you’re on Medicare Advantage, or your plan doesn’t meet the new regulatory standards, or the new law induces your employer to drop your coverage.

Talking point: The bill “brings down costs for everyone.”

Reality: Unless you’re young and healthy, or a taxpayer.

Talking point: The disagreement between the parties concerns whether there should be “more or less oversight of the insurance companies.”

Reality: If the bill merely stepped up oversight of the insurance companies, it would have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a year ago.

Talking point: The bill “protects Medicare for America’s seniors.”

Reality: The bill cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars, and some of those cuts will even occur.

Talking point: The bill will give tens of millions of Americans the same insurance choices as members of Congress.

Reality: Members of Congress are in a much less regulated system.

Talking point: The CBO says that the bill will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Reality: CBO says that projections into the second decade are meaningless, and that even its first-decade projections include savings that it was ordered to assume will take place.

Talking point: Under the bill, small businesses will not have to choose between “hiring and health care.”

Reality: You might find yourself unable to get either a job or insurance from a small business because of this bill's mandates.

Talking point: “The American people deserve an up-or-down vote.”

Reality: Except in the House.

Talking point: The plan’s components are popular—for example, its provision that people can keep what they have.

Reality: Which means that when described fully and accurately, it’s not popular. As everyone knows."

Man i hope the Dems pass this bill, especially through the Deem and Pass technique. With the American people's anger towards these low-life's already at record lows, it will certainly spell their doom.

FM - IMO I want the Dems to pass the bill thru the deam process. It would be tossed out by the scotus which would further put on display the Dems corruption in this issue.

The constitituion is very very clear on how a bill becomes a law. I think even the liberal members of the scotus would vote to toss out obamacare since it was passed illegally.

That is exactly what I expect to happen.

@Stillow. These are house rules. Has nothing to do with the legal realm. It's just like the scotus knocking down the filibuster as unconstitutional.

It would be interesting to have the SCOTUS throw it out over Deem and Pass. My understanding is that if the procedure is deemed unconstitutional, it would also undue each of the occurrences throughout it's 80 year history. Including, hundreds of times the Republicans have used it. It would be one of those decisions that no one would the exact ramifications of as people went back and un-did many many laws, tax breaks, welfare reform provisions. It would be entertaining to see the daily barrage of news about changes.

I also want to watch republicans run on an outright repeal of HCR if it passes. What of the 48.7% of opposes HCR (Pollster's number from the tracking chart, that huge majority of Americans that are moving towards revolution over HCR) are really going to want to give up:

Eliminating lifetime spending caps
Eliminating pre-existing conditions requirements
Children able to be covered until the age of 26.
Small businesses tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums available to firms that offer coverage for
Shrinking the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit coverage gap

Those are gonna be very popular ads, I can see them now. Why don't they pare that with privatizing SSI and medicare while their at it. I'm sure the 48.7% opposed will grow to at least 75%. Of course it will be people opposed to rescinding the provisions at that point.

Billy Chunge - I know thats the argument libs will make. But the constitution has REQUIREMENTS for a bill to become law. The hosue, nor the Senate can pass a rule which violates the consitutional requirements of creating laws. Article 1, section 7 is very clear that a bill must pass the house and the senate and do so with a yea or nay vote before it can be signed into law by the president. So the house simply saying ya we passed it without a vote would clearly be unconstituional and the scotus woudl ahve no choice but to throw the whole thing out.

I think that sis what the Dems know, but that way they can assign the blame to the court instead of themselves....in any event, the court would have no choice but to toss it out.

I'd be interested to see every piece of legislation that would come undone by challenging Deem and Pass. Lets get the facts straight.

HCR support up to mid 40's from low 30's.
Dem party support is up a smidge too.

I'm curious if Dems are going to completely Hail Mary the supposed inevitable 2010 November loss into a fairly moot election cycle. It would be most Republican's worst nightmare after their self destructive PR campaign against them.

Deem me up, Barry!

I told my CEO that I deamed myself approved for a salary increase.

I think when I tak the kids to pizza this weekend I will just tellthe waitress that I deamed the bill to have already been paid and I need not worry about it.

You libs are onto soemthing here, this deaming thing could actually work out for all of us.

The "deeming" process is completely Constitutional. It has been used 20 times in the last thirty years by both parties. The vote to deem is considered under house rules a vote for the bill deemed.

Any Constitutional challenge will be laughed out of court. You guys on the right have lost this battle.

On to immigration!

Wong and other libs might want to read Article 1, section 7 of that pesky document called the Constitution they seem hate so much.

Hmmm, I think I may just deem my high blood pressure cured as well.

Here libs, I'll try to come down to your intelectual level for a moment. Here is a nice little cartoon on how a bill becomes a law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

Don't you just hate when voting gets i nthe way for what you want? With Obama's falling approval numbers and his re-election in doubt, perhaps he could just deem himself today as winner of the 2012 election....I mean afterall it would save us money and we wouldn't have to go outside in the cold weather.

I don't care if its constitutional or not. The fact is that the people don't like the bill, they don't like congress, and they don't like the corruption and outright bribery used to try and get it past.

Passing it with the deeming method will just lead to more losses come November. Before, the dems could just get enough votes to pass it (if they could) and then have their more vulnerable dems (blue dogs) vote no clearing them with their constituents. Now, all these vulnerable dems are on the hook for this bill because THEIR PARTY passed it. All congressmen with a (D) next to their names will be responsible. 35 of these dems who are in tossups with the (R) challengers are in districts that went for McCain.

The Constitutionality of "deem and pass" was challenged by Public Citizen in conjunction with other groups when the procedure was used by Republicans to pass a bill signed By George W.Bush in 2005-2006

The federal court upheld the legality of the procedure. Maybe Stillow and others on this site should give up trying to interpret the Constitution with ideological blinders on and read a littler case law.

Hey Wong, would you like to make a public freindly bet? The scotus will toss it out if it gets to that point...I will put up $5,000 to your favorite charity if I am wrong and you can do the same....Interested?

Its plain as day, Article 1, Section 7. It desribes in detail how a bill must be processed in order to become law. In addition the scotus has a conservative tilt to it so its more likely to uphold the consititution than a court with a liberal tilt is.

FM 's argument that HCR will be the end of the Democratic majority in Congress, is I believe, completely wrong and is a misinterpretation of public opinion polls.

Regardless, the bill is about to become law. I repeat, You guys have lost this battle.

I am looking forward to immigration reform which will be next on the agenda. The blatant anti-hispanic sentiment of the Republican base is a phenomonah we look forward to exploring.

Supreme Court won't become activist and reverse the 20 or so bills that have been used by the Deem process. People seem to read the Constitution and fail to read our laws that clarify the constitution, including those that have built our legislative process.

Filibustering wasn't in the constitution but it is an accepted tactic that the Republicans use. It is their right and I recognize the constitutionality of them to use it. I'd get off the Constitution argument or face losing full face.

I'm pretty happy Dems are unleashing the big guns because all these proceedural tactics to get the vote in should have been used ages ago. Noone will remember what reconcilation means come November. Its time the Dems grew a pair and said Majority Rules.

It has already been challenged Stillow and it withstood the challenge. It will never get to SCOTUS.

"Regardless, the bill is about to become law. I repeat, You guys have lost this battle."

Actually, America lost this battle.

"I am looking forward to immigration reform which will be next on the agenda. The blatant anti-hispanic sentiment of the Republican base is a phenomonah we look forward to exploring."

LOL.

@Field Marshal

"I would love to hear your thought as too which Rep talking point is not based in reality."

Here you go.

Talking point: While you may want to go without insurance—especially once the government is done remaking it—the government will make you fork over cash to the insurance companies. If you want to buy a cheap catastrophic policy, the government will tell the insurance companies not to offer you one.

Reality: Most young people and the uninsured do not buy catastrophic insurance. Rather, when they have a medical emergency, they are sent to the emergency where they get care at the expense of the insured.

Talking point: The bill doesn't let you keep your doctor and your insurance plan.

Reality: It does.

Talking point: The bill doesn't bring down cost for the young, healthy and taxpayers.

Reality: The young won't stay young forever, and at some point in middle age they might lose their job and private insurance. If they get ill during that time they will be better off with this plan.

Talking point: If the bill merely stepped up oversight of the insurance companies, it would have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a year ago.

Reality: Republicans have consistently bitched over increased regulation of private industry. If the above talking points were true, why didn't the Republicans initiate it when they controlled all three branches of the federal government? After all, Dems support it.

Talking point: The bill cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars, and some of those cuts will even occur.

Reality: The bill eliminates huge bonuses paid to insurance companies offering Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare advantage is being used by some insurance companies to rip off taxpayers. On average, insurances companies enjoy a bonus of 14 percent higher payments than the average cost of traditional Medicare. The bill would require insurance companies to compete on a level playing field with traditional Medicare. Why should taxpayers pay for bad business models or subsidize insurance company profits?

Talking point: Interstate competition would lower healthcare cost for everybody.

Reality: It could have devastating effects for many consumers depending on how it is structured.

Talking point: CBO says that projections into the second decade are meaningless, and that even its first-decade projections include savings that it was ordered to assume will take place.

Reality: Republicans have no problem using CBO data against HCR when the numbers are unfavorable, but are ready to qualify and disregard the numbers when they are favorable. It must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.

Talking point: You might find yourself unable to get either a job or insurance from a small business because of this bill's mandates.

Reality: The bill exempts or subsidies most small businesses. Currently, many small business cannot afford to insure their workers.

Talking point: Democrats say, “the American people deserve an up-or-down vote,” but are not practicing what they preach in the House.

Reality: Republicans are refusing to give the American people an up-or-down vote in the Senate. If they end the filibuster in the Senate, the Dems would be more than happy to pass a conference bill in both chambers of Congress.

Talking point: When the bill is described fully it is not popular.

Reality: People like government benefits but don't like paying for them. This is why Republicans always increase the size of government and budget deficits when in power despite their promises to the contrary.

"FM 's argument that HCR will be the end of the Democratic majority in Congress, is I believe, completely wrong and is a misinterpretation of public opinion polls. "

It will not be the end of the Dem party. It will just hurt really bad come November and in 2012.

Just as the calls for the demise of the Rep party were/are ignorant and short sighted, the calls for the long term demise of the Dems are the same. As long as we keep electing the same sort of individuals, average, middle-class people will continue to vote out these corrupt and narcissistic candidate.

What i find really funny is one party and its constituents think that government is infallible and the answer to all problems while the other believes that government should be limited and is the source of most problems. I believe in the latter.

@FM

" the other believes that government should be limited and is the source of most problems. I believe in the latter."

Is that why they dramatically increased the size and each of the government when they were in power?

@FM

"It will not be the end of the Dem party. It will just hurt really bad come November and in 2012."

So why not get out of their way and let them pass the bill so that you guys can take complete control in 2010 and 2012 and repeal it?

If Republicans repeal it say goodbye to 2016 or 2020 and Hell just wait until the bomb in 2064. Republicans will be toast then.

"Is that why they dramatically increased the size and each of the government when they were in power?"

Well, its certainly why they were voted out of power in '06 and '08. The Reps stayed home because of the government expansion and spending. Now the Dems are quadrupling down on it and they along with much of the indies are pissed.

Or was it all those ideas that Pelosi and her Party of NO were introducing?

"So why not get out of their way and let them pass the bill so that you guys can take complete control in 2010 and 2012 and repeal it?"

Because the reps win either way. But they win more if they successfully defeat it over a pass- although if they do the deem and pass method it may be an even bigger "win" for the reps. If they simply "get out of the way" it will look like they were complicit with it. Always better to fight and go down swinging.

The way its structured it will be almost impossible to repeal. But something will have to be done since it will bankrupt us completely otherwise.

The Republicans know that they can't repeal it just as they couldn't repeal social security or Medicare and Medicaid. They also know that even if it passes Obama is still the favorite in 2012. This is precisely why they are so frustrated right now.

They have been stunned by Obama's resilience and stubborness on this issue. They thought Obama was gonna capitulate and be put on the defensive like Clinton in 1993.

Ironically, Obama's biggest strength is the combination of his naivete, inexperience, proclivity toward consensus and intellectual curiosity.

"The Republicans know that they can't repeal it just as they couldn't repeal social security or Medicare and Medicaid. They also know that even if it passes Obama is still the favorite in 2012. This is precisely why they are so frustrated right now. "

Exactly. The Dems are really great at creating HUGE entitlements that will ultimately bankrupt our nation.

Also, the incumbent is always the front-runner in their re-election year. Just like GWB in 2004.

Interesting that you call Obama's inexperience and naivete a strength. Most people would call that a weakness not matter where its applied.

@FM

"Well, its certainly why they were voted out of power in '06 and '08. The Reps stayed home because of the government expansion and spending."

This is one of the silly but self-serving stories that Republicans tell themselves to make them avoid dealing with the utter failure of their foreign policy vision.

The main campaign issues of '06 did not include spending. They were Iraq and ethics. In '08, the main issues were the economy, the financial crisis and the miserable failure of the Bush presidency. The deficit and government spending were tangential issues tied to the failure of Bush.

I'd challenge Republicans to repeal Health Care. We can change them from Party of No to Party of Reverse. Reversing it would be political suicide as much as people are saying it is for the Dems to pass it. Lets see if Republicans use reconciliation or deem and pass to do it if they don't get a super majority. See how many people's tunes change.

@FM

"Exactly. The Dems are really great at creating HUGE entitlements that will ultimately bankrupt our nation."

So why hasn't Social Security bankrupted the country in the past 80 years? Why hasn't Medicare and Medicaid bankrupted the country yet? In fact in 2000 we had a $235 billion surplus and trillions of dollars of projected surplus in the 2000s.

The real issue is not the entitlements. Entitlements are meant to be reformed because the world is not static. After all, Social Security was reformed and saved in the 1980's by a commission. In the 1990's, the H. W. Bush and Clinton tax increases in addition to the Dole/Gringrich/Clinton welfare reform efforts helped balance the budget.

The real issues have been Reagan and his version of supply-side economics and the weakening of the intellectual class of the conservative movement. The absurd idea that cutting taxes always leads to economic growth and increased revenue that would cover the initial budget deficits has lead to a situation where taxing has been divorced from spending. In the past, the threat of potential tax increases helped keep spending in check.

For instance, part of the reason why the Medicare drug benefit of Republicans was less controversial than the current HCR bill was not only because it was smaller and less transformative, but also because it was unpaid for. The Iraq war was also easier to support because it wasn't paid for. By contrast, taxes went up dramatically in the '40s to pay for WWII. In fact the top marginal rate stayed at 90% for almost 2 decades under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Back then, massive spending had ultimate consequences and the population understood that. Reagan and the supply-siders changed all that. H.W. Bush and Clinton tried to restore some balance but Dubya and his Republicans reverted back due to their almost pathological Reagan fetish. This perverted fetish has almost single-handedly led to the decimation of the intellectual class of the intellectual class of the GOP. As the intellectual class is pushed aside, their creative energy and ideas are marginalized. The very fact that Paul Ryan is being hailed as a hero tells you all you need to know about the seriousness of the crisis.

williame123 - Social Security is i nthe process of repealing itself. Its an unsustainable entitlement as entitlements are, long term it will be repealed by virture of having no other choice. There simply is not enough money to pay for it....

You libs are totally missing everything on HCR. First off, it ha snot passed yet. If they use the deeming gimmick, the scotus will toss it out....Article 1, section 7 cannot be anymore clear on how a bill is to become a law. Making an argument well its been done before, waaa waaaa won't work. People steal cars too, that doesn't mean we let the next guy who does it off the hook. The scotus will toss it out faster than you can say Ex President Obama.

If pelosi does get the votes and it passes on its own normally, parts of it will be found unconstitutional suhc as the individual mandate. Many legal scholars have stated they do not beelive the constitution allows the g'ment to force you to purchase something. They owuld have to rewrite it as a tax.

And the GOP repeal effort would be somehwat easy....the majoiryt of people would demand it. If HCR passes, the GOP will win back the House and Senate, both chambers will pass a one page bill repaling HCR, Obama will veto it....that will make 2012 a one issue race based on HCR....with the unpopulairty of the bill, that is a race the Dems will lose.

As a fan of politics in general, this entire thing has actually worked out better than any conservative coudl ahve hoped. the Dems are in a lose/lose/lose/lose situation.

At this point politically the best thing that can happen for the Dems is to do the deeming vote and let it fail. that way Obama can say the House never voted on HC, so it did not fail. House Dems can say the rule was voted down, not HCR. Then it would go quietly into the night not to be hear of again....and the Dems will actually hopefully move on to something people care about, like job creation.

Aboslutely perfect scenario for the GOP right now. This has proven to be a strategic victory on every count for the GOP....the Dems have lost the moderates and Indy's....that was obvious with the MA election. Right now this dog and pony show going on is for the kooky liberal base....they cannot afford to to lose the base...so they are just putting o nthe show for the nutty leftwingnuts.

Stillow- "And the GOP repeal effort would be some what easy....the majority of people would demand it."

Do you really think a majority of people would want it repealed, after all not even a majority are against the bill as it is. Like I said before, a good chunk of the 49% the say they're against the bill now, are gonna want to give up what's in it, once it passes. They're just not going to want to pay for it is all.

So is this the constitutional clarity you're talking about? "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President."

I don't see anywhere in there where it says that each bill must have an tallied vote of all members present and it must be 50%+1. Why can't they deem a bill passed, it is thus by definition passed. The difference from your examples is that they are doing something within their power to do, pass bills. You don't have the power to give yourself a raise, have the restaurant forgive your bill, etc. Here's a closer example. Go into your CEOs office and hand in one report and deem the work that you had been doing for the last year on another report done and final. Or think of it like your CEO signing those pesky financial statements, and "deeming" them honest and truthful. Within their power to do, thus ok. The House can't deem a bill passed by the Senate, as that's not in their realm of control.

"When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules."
-- Don Wolfensberger, former chief of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republicans, 2006.

Yeah, Stillow, let's go to the SCOTUS and overturn all of those...wonder what random changes to our lives will happen as we undo bunches of things from the great contract with America...my quick addition eliminates 202 items passed from 1995-2006. A quick eraser to the law books.